Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pangenom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pangenom[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Probably not a notable concept. Even ignoring the misspelling of the title of the article, repeated by its author in his every use of the word here and in correspondence, it isn't clear that this is any more than one writer's personal conception, itself, in turn, just a generalization of the concepts already discussed at Pan-genome. I didn't locate any discussion of this version of the concept by anybody else. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An additional note: The article was created by User:Georgetets (with an "s"). The person whose paper he cites is V.V. Tetz (with a "z"), who appears to be Victor V. Tetz, who has written other papers on genomes—in collaboration with a George Tetz, also with a "z". Make of it what you will. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The name is misspelled (the single quoted reference calls it 'pangenome') and the WP article is terribly written. After a look at Google Scholar, my impression is that the article currently presented as "Pangenom" is a concept proposed 10 years ago that took no apparent hold in the field of molecular biology and therefore made no impact, so it lacks notoriety. All the sources in the literature I saw, use the term pangenome (or pan-genome) in the context of the sum of all the genes in a given species, in a clade or even in a Kingdom. BatteryIncluded (talk) 07:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article's creator has just added a list of papers to the article. I looked at one, to which I had full-text access. The word "pangenom" appears nowhere in it. It cites the V.V. Tetz paper espousing his theory on pangenomes, but there's no indication that the concept of an all-encompassing pangenome is itself what the writer took from that source. —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The whole article is still backed by a single paper only, which had no impact in the field on genomics. Are we done yet? BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have flagged it for copyright violation. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.